Nokia plots an aluminum Windows Phone handset for 2013

Polycarbonate felt good, but Nokia can't make it sleek and appealing enough to compete.

Nokia is planning to release a lighter, thinner phone with aluminum casing in its Lumia line during 2013, according to a report from The Verge. The aluminum would replace the company’s signature polycarbonate body for its flagship Windows Phone handsets in pursuit of competing with companies putting out sleeker phones.

Nokia has now released two flagship phones, the Lumia 900 and Lumia 920. Both have shells cut from blocks of polycarbonate with a texture luxurious enough to make even the most discerning of consumers covetous. Nokia partially departed from the material with a handful of Lumia 920s rendered in slick red and yellow plastic. But the Lumia flagship feels increasingly bloated in size compared to its competitors, especially its contemporary, the HTC 8X.

The aluminum Lumia number is codenamed Catwalk, according to The Verge, and would maintain similar hardware specs to the Lumia 920 but with a slimmed-down profile. While the polycarbonate bodies have always met our approval, we wouldn’t be sad to see the shiny plastic models booted out the door in favor of aluminum ones. If they all must go in favor of a sleeker phone, so be it.

The Verge provides no time frame for the device’s launch other than “later this year.” It’s not impossible Nokia will demo the device at CES next week, but we’d hold out for a launch during smartphone season in the fall.

"But the Lumia flagship feels increasingly bloated in size compared to its competitors, especially its contemporary, the HTC 8X."

I don't know about that. I went to lunch today with one my work buddies. His Samsung Galaxy SIII is certainly a thinner, lighter phone. But not in the case he added to it. I asked about the case, and his response was "the back tends to pop off and the phone definitely wouldn't survive much abuse if I didn't put the case on".

Personally, I prefer my Lumia 920. No case required, and I really like the blue. And the wireless charging, which I didn't think I'd care about. Samsung makes nice hardware, and the iPhone 5 is nice and all: but they all require a case if you want to get lots of life out of them. I personally prefer the current Nokia approach, but to each his own.

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

I dropped my Nokia 920 (matte cyan) on the ice covered street yesterday. I watched it happen in slow motion, feeling the expression of horror creep onto my face at record speeds. Bounce bounce sliiiiide....and all is well. Tiniest of scratches on the corner where it hit, but otherwise no damage.

I'm slightly torn, because I really love thin and light electronics, but slapping a huge rubber case over a beautiful metal phone just ruins it for me. The 920 is certainly "chunky," and I'd love a thinner model, but not at the cost of having to use a case.

"Polycarbonate felt good, but Nokia can't make it sleek and appealing enough to compete."

I get that you don't like it. But to say it can't compete is just plain stupid and misleading. Lots of people find it only a minor issue or none at all and think it's the best smartphone they've owned.

I'm not regretting my 920, but I think (or hope) Nokia will put in the only thing that made it a really hard choice between an Android and 920, a freaking MicroSD card space!....I have several friends that point out it would be almost perfect ("as made by apple" as some of the more senseless friends put it ) if not for the missing card space....

And I love the feeling of the iphone 5 but it felt like I were going to break it in a week and Galaxy S3 felt like a cheap plastic butter knife...

Oh well looking forward to see what Nokia will put out in the future so I can look at my phone and which for the latest

I think wireless charging is something you kind of have to experience to appreciate. It seemed that everyone was telling me that it wasn't that big a deal (on my Palm Pre), but I absolutely loved it and miss it quite a bit.

Agreed. I honestly thought it was a pretty silly feature, and never would have purchased my own wireless charging dock. But AT&T sent me one after I purchased the phone, and I said "why not" and plugged it in. I love it. It's not that I need it or that it makes my life noticeably easier, but there is something satisfying about dropping it on a pad and hearing the subtle charging chime.

I actually prefer polycarbonate on metal frames versus aluminum/magnesium unibody stuff for my gadgets. I know metal casings have a perceived premium quality. But if I designed a phone I'd go with polycarbonate. Its lighter and absorbs shock better like crush zones on a car, and its probably much better for the radios.

"Polycarbonate felt good, but Nokia can't make it sleek and appealing enough to compete."

I get that you don't like it. But to say it can't compete is just plain stupid and misleading. Lots of people find it only a minor issue or none at all and think it's the best smartphone they've owned.

In the context of Windows Phone, "lots of people" is anecdote; market share & profit is data. Not to lay all of Nokia's problem on the material in their phone body, but this argument is not very compelling.

A better argument would be that the Galaxy line doesn't seem to be suffering from a lack of aluminum body, so maybe aluminum isn't all that relevant. It would be interesting to see how an aluminum Lumia would sell next to a Polycarbonate one, though.

I've got a Galaxy S3 (which I do love). But I also have an inductive charging back on it, it just replaces the back cover. It does add a decent amount of heft though. Still lighter than the lumia though. I agree with the above commenters, the inductive charging isn't really something you appreciate until you have a device that uses it. I've got a pad at home and in the office, rarely ever actually plug the phone in.

As for the feel and weight, the Lumia's are indeed really heavy. A few people in the office got them, and they're gorgeous phones but the weight was the first thing I noticed. Still, I'm torn. The cases are just so iconic, i'm not sure going a different direction is a good thing.

I made the jump from iPhone 4 to Nokia 920 last weekend and have to say that while the phone is bigger, it's not much bigger. It is however big enough to make one hand typing annoyingly hard.

Saying that, I love the larger screen - that makes up for the size as web browsing is much easier. My biggest fear was that apps would be limiting, but other than a couple, everything I use has been available and I'm very happy with it. The new interface is very slick and the camera excellent and making it look like I have a steady hand. Performance is excellent too. My iPhone 4 was getting pretty sluggish with some large lags recently.

I'm still split on whether to get a case or test how solid the phone is... dropped it once and it survived, but you read others say they regret not getting a case... would be sad to cover up what is an excellent design... but sadder to have a destroyed phone.

Not sure if moving to aluminum is a good thing - the current case has better impact protection IMO, but I'm sure whatever they do will look great, be solid and run well.

The HTC 8X is only a fraction of a millimetre thinner than the 920, and is also made of polycarbonate.

A phone is more than its thickest point. I've had both side by side. The 920 is considerably thicker and bulkier. Which is fine if you feel its few additional features and don't value the additional features of the 8X. But there really is no contest in the size/weight area. I doubt an 8X would take the kind of abuse the 920 will, however.

Since aluminum was cutting edge in 2007, I am not surprised that it took Nokia 5+ years to catch on - based on their poor market showing during this period...

You are aware that Nokia was making a lot of phones during this period that had stainless steel bodies, like the E71, which was a sleek work of art compared to the Blackberries it was positioned against. Outside of the fugly N97, Nokia has generally made some great looking phone hardware. The biggest problem they had was being chained to an ancient smartphone OS that was not able to compete with Android, and their MeeGo successor was too little, too late. They just realized way too late that when it comes to software and service ecosystems, a single vendor has no hope of going against Google, Apple, or Microsoft and succeeding. They just don't have the resources needed to keep up, which is why Blackberry is probably pretty doomed as well.

The only reason to bitch about the 920's size and weight is because you have small hands. Casey, I get you don't like the phone, but your issues with it don't make in uncompetitive. Give it up, we know you don't like it, but that doesn't make it not a great phone despite the fact you can't differentiate your feelings about it versus what it is to other people.

I like the features of the 920 but I have to admit after messing around with both the 8X does feel quite a bit better in my hand and I'd be more inclined to get one because of it. I didn't think it would be a big deal but I can definitely see where someone would be turned off by the heft of a Lumia. It really does seem like much ado about nothing but that's where those damn intangibles come into play. I'd love to see what an aluminum shelled Lumia would look like. If they could combine their best in class feature set with a phone that is demonstrably thinner and lighter than their current 920 there wouldn't be much of a reason at all to look at another phone (larger screen and SD support not-with-standing).

Didn't the Xperia Ion have some kind of metal build, which was damaging to the wifi signal? Would that matter here? Will any performance factors come into play here, apart from size and weight?

My first thought was of solid aluminum blocking pretty much all RF signals - cell, Wi-Fi, even NFC. They'd have to put all of the antennas in a plastic or polycarbonate bezel, or have recessed cut-outs in the aluminum, or something like that. Even close proximity to a (relatively) big sheet of metal will detune some antenna designs, though that may be avoidable. Doesn't seem practical to me.

"Polycarbonate felt good, but Nokia can't make it sleek and appealing enough to compete."

I get that you don't like it. But to say it can't compete is just plain stupid and misleading. Lots of people find it only a minor issue or none at all and think it's the best smartphone they've owned.

Lots isn't sufficient since Nokia is still losing market share and every single 'improvement' counts.

"Polycarbonate felt good, but Nokia can't make it sleek and appealing enough to compete."

I get that you don't like it. But to say it can't compete is just plain stupid and misleading. Lots of people find it only a minor issue or none at all and think it's the best smartphone they've owned.

Lots isn't sufficient since Nokia is still losing market share and every single 'improvement' counts.

Compete implies that they are growing as fast as the industry.

And where is the data proving that Nokia having a polycarbonate body is directly losing them marketshare because the 920 isn't aluminum? Where's the data saying that being aluminum would be an irrefutable "improvement" to everyone interested in buying one? This whole article is bullshit from start to finish. There's absolutely no basis for the opinion that the 920 being aluminum would make the phone sell better.

I never understood the whining about the size or weight of the Lumia 920. Sure, it's heavier than your average smartphone, but the build quality is superb. How much more muscle mass does it really take to carry this thing, anyway?

In the comments on The Verge, someone mentioned that the aluminum material would block the wireless charging coils and NFC. Would this be an issue?

They could do what Apple does with the iPads and iPhone 5. They have plastic on the iPads over the antenna area. For the iPhone 5, they have two small pieces of glass, one at the top, and one at the bottom. The only problem is that it's more expensive to produce.

Didn't the Xperia Ion have some kind of metal build, which was damaging to the wifi signal? Would that matter here? Will any performance factors come into play here, apart from size and weight?

My first thought was of solid aluminum blocking pretty much all RF signals - cell, Wi-Fi, even NFC. They'd have to put all of the antennas in a plastic or polycarbonate bezel, or have recessed cut-outs in the aluminum, or something like that. Even close proximity to a (relatively) big sheet of metal will detune some antenna designs, though that may be avoidable. Doesn't seem practical to me.

The answer of course, is a cost-effective material that has the nice feel and rigidity of aluminum coupled with RF transparency. Oh yeah, and is amenable to durable colored coatings. Simple!

"Polycarbonate felt good, but Nokia can't make it sleek and appealing enough to compete."

I get that you don't like it. But to say it can't compete is just plain stupid and misleading. Lots of people find it only a minor issue or none at all and think it's the best smartphone they've owned.

Lots isn't sufficient since Nokia is still losing market share and every single 'improvement' counts.

Compete implies that they are growing as fast as the industry.

And where is the data proving that Nokia having a polycarbonate body is directly losing them marketshare because the 920 isn't aluminum? Where's the data saying that being aluminum would be an irrefutable "improvement" to everyone interested in buying one? This whole article is bullshit from start to finish. There's absolutely no basis for the opinion that the 920 being aluminum would make the phone sell better.

Compare aluminum to polycarbonate yourself then. Maybe you've never held a polycarbonate iBook? It's got a horrific stiffness to weight ratio, meaning that given the same sized 'back' you would need dramatically more polycarb to achieve similar strength.

On a laptop that translates to ounces, on a phone it's grams, but grams can translate into mm of size.

Compare aluminum to polycarbonate yourself then. Maybe you've never held a polycarbonate iBook? It's got a horrific stiffness to weight ratio, meaning that given the same sized 'back' you would need dramatically more polycarb to achieve similar strength.

On a laptop that translates to ounces, on a phone it's grams, but grams can translate into mm of size.

I know the difference between plastic and aluminum. You didn't answer the question, only deflected it. Show me definitive data that making the Lumia 920 from aluminum instead of polycarbonate would make it both more attractive to every consumer looking to buy one, and would make it sell better and more "competitive" in the smartphone market. Hint: There isn't any. Maybe you've never held a 920? I'm guessing you haven't.

I can get if you have small hands a extra millimeter or 2 in thickness might make a difference but in reality its the width of the phone due to larger screens that make them hard to handle for tiny hands. I don't see switching to aluminum which will scratch and dent easier, and make antenna placement more difficult as an improvement. It just turns it into another phone that needs a case to protect it, defeating the fractional difference in thickness. This is why they tend to make a few different models. Find one that suits you if it's too big. With all the antenna's being crammed into a phones these days, using a material that makes it harder to do so seems like a step back to me.

Compare aluminum to polycarbonate yourself then. Maybe you've never held a polycarbonate iBook? It's got a horrific stiffness to weight ratio, meaning that given the same sized 'back' you would need dramatically more polycarb to achieve similar strength.

On a laptop that translates to ounces, on a phone it's grams, but grams can translate into mm of size.

I know the difference between plastic and aluminum. You didn't answer the question, only deflected it. Show me definitive data that making the Lumia 920 from aluminum instead of polycarbonate would make it both more attractive to every consumer looking to buy one, and would make it sell better and more "competitive" in the smartphone market. Hint: There isn't any. Maybe you've never held a 920? I'm guessing you haven't.

The only answer to your question is that the number one (possibly two, since numbers aren't available yet) selling phone in the world is made of aluminum.

My point is Nokia has to try everything to regain sales, from design to materials to SW and HW. If polycarb fails then try aluminum. If WP fails try Android.

The only answer to your question is that the number one (possibly two, since numbers aren't available yet) selling phone in the world is made of aluminum.

My point is Nokia has to try everything to regain sales, from design to materials to SW and HW. If polycarb fails then try aluminum. If WP fails try Android.

They really have no choice.

The reason the iPhone sells as well as it does has almost nothing to do with the fact that it's made of aluminum. It has everything to do with the overall experience and ecosystem it lives in, and the very well done engineering of the design. If it were made of plastic it might make a difference to some for artificial and ridiculous reasons, but not to me because anything well built from any material will have a premium feel. Plastic doesn't automatically equal "cheap" or "weak" in any manufacturing process. I've got a white 920 and it feels no less well engineered than any other phone on the market, changing it to aluminum won't make any difference. It's solid, doesn't rattle, has no panel gaps, and isn't cheap feeling by any stretch. Saying so is beyond ignorant because no one is complaining about the materials other than those with nothing else to complain about. The phone has shortcomings, but they are 99% software related.

As the article is written, it's total bullshit. There's nothing truthful about saying Nokia phones not being made of aluminum makes them uncompetitive. It only shows that Casey is still hung up on the phone not fitting her hand, and that anything that doesn't emulate or aspire to be the iPhone is inferior.